How ‘Bout Some Common Sense?
First off, let’s get something straight. The guarantee of the 2nd Amendment is far from absolute, as much as the pro-gun forces may want you to believe it is. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in the recent Heller case made that clear.
Now, let’s have some common sense. If gun possession made us safer, the United States, with by far the highest per capita rate of gun ownership in the developed world, would be the safest from gun violence among our fellow developed countries (Western Europe, Canada and Japan). Instead, while most rates of crime and violence for the US are similar to those of our fellows, our country suffers many times more gun violence per capita than any other developed country. Coincidence? Hardly. It doesn’t take a genius to make the obvious connection between gun violence and presence of guns.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Really? The Gun Control group is laboring under the delusion that banning firearms will make you safe. So here's some common sense for you. Ever hear, about this thing that's been around for about 100 years called the black market? take away handguns, and criminals will be forced to buy off the black market, which sells military grade hardware. what are you going to do? impose restrictions on the black market? They don't care! they brake the law for a living!
how 'bout some common sense.
keep your gun away for the kiddies, have your own gun that way you can take an offense if necessary against your attacker.
Obviously, if a person with a sound mind has a gun, they're not going to use it if they don't have to.
anything about the kiddies dieing is because they're parent/gardian/idiot didn't take the time to make sure it was out of reach.
I agree, we need common sense! We need to TEACH kids ABOUT guns in school , not teach them this inanimate object is bad. It has NO ability by itself to do much more than collect dust or rust!!
Those who attack guns are the same crowd that do NOT beleive in personal responsiblity or punishment for one's bad actions. Till we solve that lack of understanding of the human being, we can not solve the gun issue. Its that simple!
Till then I will guard my freedom very cautiously!!!
My sense of the Pro Gun/ Anti Gun disagreements are mostly because each side is referring to something different. What makes that important is each side seems to be doing the wrong things for the right reasons. It seems to me we (both sides of the alleged issue) should get on the same page.
The anti gun folk are concerned about firearm violence and see outlawing or restricting firearms as a solution. The pro gun side doesn't want bans and further restrictions. The problem is both are missing the mark. The problem is violence. Both sides would be overjoyed if the problem of violence were addressed. Proposing outlawing or restricting firearms does not address violence. Supporting 2nd amendment rights does not address violence. I think you see where I am going here.
There is a goal displacement in the issue(s) and proposals to resolve them. Nowhere in the anti gun proposals are any solutions to violence and a whole raft of other issues that are not addressed by the application of anti firearm legislation. It may me my mental defects that cause me to question why would anyone want to do something that can't possibly work and only tends to irritate folks who are not a threat. It is one of them there "Same action, same result." It's gotta make you wonder. Like Einstein's definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
Are we worried more about violent crimes, or just crimes with guns ? Does it make sense to expect that crime would go down with less guns, or merely that gun crimes would go down with less guns? It seems to me that crime is the issue, not guns. Let's look at some facts about gun usage:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x155031
SUPGV,
Aren't you the one in another post who said "Causal effect is always hard to determine"? Yet here you're making a blanket statement that more guns equal more violence. It's funny how that whole double-standard thing works with anti-gunners. To paraphrase your comments in "Fewer Guns in North East...", Did more guns really lead to MORE crime or were there many other factors such as DOWNTURNS in the economy , LESS aggressive policing, LOWER incarceration rates, INCREASE in crack cocaine use?
Just a thought...
Are there more guns out there today? Yes there is....and a lot more.
If more guns equal more deaths, why has the death rate decreased about 40% in the governments latest statistics.
Japan is a homogenious society that has thousands of years social structure unlike these United States. Yes they have few guns. Yes, the suicide rate is much higher than ours.
Austrailia, Great Britain, and Canada have greatly restricted or banned most firearms and now are experiencing a huge increase in crime compared to before the restrictions. Remember when the Bobbies didn't carry firearms? What has changed?
As an Australian, I have to correct your generalisation that there has been a huge increase in crime . This is for the most part, factually untrue. If you look at the links below, you will see that property crime has been trending downwards in the last few years ( http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/property/stats /), while only Assault has risen among violent crimes ( http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/stats /). Irrespective of the statistical aspects, the fact remains that gun related violence is really very rare in Australia. When people do commit violent crimes, they use firearms in only around 15% of cases ( http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/keyFacts_handguns.html ). In any case, even before the bans of 1996 and 2001 (which applied to automatics, semi-automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns, and high capacity semi-automatic pistols), there has never been a law permitting private citizens to carry firearms of any sort on their person for any reason, so it isn't as if people stopped carrying guns or keeping them in their homes to not having them at all.
I am curious, was it the guns that the crips/bloods have make them violent? Was it the guns that the Hells Angels possess make them violent? Are the guns the MS-13 have the reason they are so violent? Remember when skinheads just kicked the crap out of people? I wonder if their steel-toed boots suddenly make them violent? Is it just possible that it is the inherent, violent proclivity of some people the real problem. While I would agree that the act of killing and robbing may be easier when the bad guy has a gun, but if I have a gun as well (which I do) and I have some training (which I do, and I advocate training and regular practice) my chances of surviving a negative encounter with a robber or killer is greatly improved. However, my theory about the miraculous removal of all guns from private ownership would simply result in attacks by a greater force from which I could not defend i.e. more bad guys acting in concert against one person. With a firearm I am a formidable opponent; without one I am a victim and a statistic. I plan on being neither.
As to the issue of common sense, I have yet to hear from the gun control group ANYTHING that even comes close to common sense when it comes to limiting my ability to defend myself and my family. I don't see any common sense in limiting me to one-gun-per-month schemes. When I lived in SoCal most gun owners took that to mean, not a limitation of one-gun-per-month, but a requirement of one-gun-per-month. Many of us purchased many more guns than we normally would have due to that limitation. This was especially true in the case of collectors of hard to find, out of production firearms. At one point I had as many as nine guns paid for but I couldn't take possession of them. I had to wait months before I could bring them home. In almost every case these guns were unsuited for anything but collecting but there was no provision in the law for that. Explain the "common-sense" in that? I'll tell you what common sense is. Common sense is educating responsible, law-abiding gun owners, the ones who buy one gun for home defense, about gun safety. Oops, the NRA does that already. So why is the NRA so demonized and vilified? As a former peace officer I fully support a person's right to own a firearm and common sense does not mean you should be able to do anything to infringe on my right and ability to defend myself and protect my family.
Last time I checked, the Swiss had a higher rate of gun ownership than we here in the States and they enjoy one of the lowest gun related crime rates in the world.
Your argument makes the supposition that gun laws are universal throughout the nation. The Highest murder rates, and violence rates involving guns in the US are (rather obviously) In large metropolitan areas.
By referencing Scalia's decision, you cannot ignore the fact that, Washington DC, one of the most violent places in the United States, has extremely strict laws prohibiting gun ownership. Therefore, if gun laws worked, by your logic, wouldn't Washington DC be one of the safest places in America? By your logic, then Philadelphia would also be a very safe city.
Gun Control is an attempt at treating a symptom of a greater ailment.
Anthropologist David Kennedy (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York) has determined in city after city that less than 0.5% of the population on average is responsible for over 75% of the homicides. When those individuals are addressed, violence in the first year of the interdiction program typically drops by half.
We don't need to control guns to address violence, we need to control criminals.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/418838
Howdy Hecate,
Until the Justice system starts handing down penalies that suit the crime and start removing the criminal element from society, I just keep my guns. I will stick to my clinging "to religion and my guns," and Obama can keep his "change." Now that is something you can take to the Bank.